About this Show

[untitled]

NETWORK

DURATION
00:30:00

RATING

SCANNED IN

SOURCE
Comcast Cable

TUNER
Channel 89 (615 MHz)

VIDEO CODEC
mpeg2video

AUDIO CODEC
ac3

PIXEL WIDTH
528

PIXEL HEIGHT
480

TOPIC FREQUENCY

Us 4, San Francisco 4, Peterson 2, Taylor 1, Quentin 1, Broderick 1, Mr. Quinlan 1, Fargo 1, Arco 1, Kitty 1, Peter Pratt 1, Chris Jones 1, Us Here 1, New York 1, New Orleans 1, Manhattan 1, Cleveland 1, Richard K. 1, Fulton 1, Massachusetts 1,
Borrow a DVD
of this show
  SFGTV    [untitled]  

    March 18, 2011
    10:30 - 11:00pm PDT  

10:30pm
on the walk up, how does the public access it and what are the hours on the atm? >> as i understand it, you take the atm card and you just walk in. 24 hours is what it is planned for. commissioner peterson: backing up some of the other parts of what banks do not apply to formula retail use, with the hours of bars, they are often open to nine -- 2 9:00. -- to 9:00.
10:31pm
is a walking atm like a 24 hour use? >> i have read, in the course of preparing for this, pretty much every mention that has been made of the formula retail law, in conjunction with financial institutions. in that review, i have not seen anything that addressed the issue that you are discussing. the planning department, on the formula retell as it relates to financial institutions and all the material i looked at were consistent that it simply was not covered. the hours were not a consideration in looking at whether a particular financial institution was formal retail. it simply was not covered. commissioner peterson: thank you.
10:32pm
have given presentations as to the background and history over the project. i'll try fill in some of the gaps and be available for your questions. as noted in our brief, the formula -- were first enacted in 2004. at that time it required a section 312 notice and also established certain findings made in the event that discretionary view be filed on the application. it was also banned in certain districts. in 2007, voters passed prop g which made it citywide in many of the districts. and this is extended beyond the neighborhood districts. but we believe that the
10:33pm
definition and the formula retail is pretty clear. as i said this has been something that has been infect since 2004 and since that time we have never processed a bank such as chase bank as a formula retail use. the other uses by the appellant, we would not -- a car rental facility or an auto dealer. looking at the intent of what this controls, it is really to deal with instances where there could be some -- but the retail use could have a negative impact on competing businesses. i think one would narg the banking industry and the car rental industry, the automobile sales industry, you generally have large businesses you don't have small mom and pop banks, necessarily. so i believe that the legislation was specifically exempted. it did not need the protection s
10:34pm
of the use controls. and the appellants brief they had indicated a case of -- chase bank. that had been denied. that once heard by the planning commission as a condition but not as retail use. that was triggered the authorization because of financial service and so the side note, the neighborhood commercial controls which were developed in the 1980's grew out of interim controls and special use districts and at that time one of the big concerns were the proliferation of banks. when they crafted it in the mid to late 1980's they paid attention to financial service. that was a line that various by district. that's how it is controlled. it may be congressional use in one district and maybe not permitted in another district. so those controls already really established limitations on that kind of use, on the financial service use.
10:35pm
i believe that addresses -- briefly in regards, that has been used as a catch-all. i believe thr there is an interpretation dating back to 1988 when in doubt, a dog business is not classified as a personal service. they put it under that category. under 790.104. so i believe that by the fact that financial service is excluded from the formula retail use controls that it should not apply here for that reason. also it is exempt. it is not noted as one of the uses that triggered section 312 notification. moving on to the use side, the plans -- and 39 46 square feet. the appellant would like us to say well, that is close enough
10:36pm
and needs a conditional use. what if the argument was it is 4050 and we were sa say it is close enough. it doesn't need a conditional use. i appreciate their concerns about the accuracy of the plans. i have already been in contact from a member of the public who called for this issue and indicated they had spoke within the department of building exppings which i indicated the correct department that will go out and give a -- verification. we review the plans and the department of building exppings ensures that the project matches what is on the plan. we rely on their inspection services to ensure the plans are adequately developed and i mentioned the public should contact the department building inspection to make a complaint if that is his concern. our conversations, they refused to do so. i contacted the chief building inspector and informed them of
10:37pm
this issue and concern and informed them this it would be going before the board of appeals and that it is something we would like to make sure this does comply with the plans. i believe it may have been made with the department of building inspection but all confident they will enforce this. if it is over 3999 square feet they will be back at the planning commission. moving on to the final -- a.t.m. notice. i apologize that i wasn't able to -- this sooner. this was an honest mistaken to part of staff. i spoke with them. it was not on a wall that was parallel to the street that it didn't need the section 312 notice. went over the planning code and i think that issue has been taken care of. it does raise the issue how do we deal with this. and as chase stated, they would
10:38pm
like to submit an alternate plan that would focus it inwards and it would not be an exterior wall. it would be on an interior wall. it would trigger the walk-up notice. the walk-up use was put in again in the 1980's at a time when a.t.m.s were brand new and were probably called tellers or whatever they may have been at the time. people were lining up for a.t.m.s. that is not the case now. we thought about lag up the controls they had for walk-up uses. they would adopt those and they would be code compliant and similar to what is -- the corner at the front of the property and they have a walk-in vestibule and that's where the a.t.m. machine is. i'm available for any questions. >> i have a question on the -- just the distinction between
10:39pm
what happened on the castro street conditional use. i don't really understand why this wouldn't have gone into the same -- how did that work? >> the neighborhood commercial district, which is a separate zoning district has separate controls for the financial services. >> so it has a specific provision for financial services and that's sort of the carve-out steps toward construction and the sponsors trying to argue. >> throughout all the neighborhood commercial districts. the district, which is the subject district, permitted as of right whereas in other districts such as this cast row, it is a c, so it is a conditional use authorization. >> for -- >> for the financial use aspect of it. >> where is that in the code? >> section, it is going to be in 720 -- -- 725, 724 probably.
10:40pm
it is alphabetical. >> my question is i guess more of what you just said. i don't think i read that in your paper. where some -- some neighborhood distributes -- districts require subject to come use whereas others are p., permissive? >> permitted. >> and that is specified in the code? >> that's correct. >> and so for those other nakeds such as the one at issue. >> so -- where would that -- is the phrase financial services listed as -- the type of maybe i missed it. i would like to see it.
10:41pm
>> section 711, nothing to do -- and that is the neighborhood commercial district where -- if we can see here financial service a separate line item defined and it is p as permitted in the districts. and then i can pull up the castro neighborhood commercial district. i believe we'll find there that section 715.
10:42pm
there we go. financial services. that's what triggered the conditional use. the use is processed. the enstiletment process is different from one district to the next. i understand the neighbor's concerns. there are legislative fixes to this. the board will consider adding that to the list. i believe there is already some -- if not a map, maybe a map district. it is -- it has definitely unique characters. but it is still an nc 2 district. it hasn't been identified yet as an individual commercial neighborhood district which you with north beach and castro and west portal. they can seek that legislative fix and taylor its more
10:43pm
specifically to the desires for the neighborhood. thank you. >> commissioners, i think the only issue for d.b.i. is the square footage. if we received a -- we would have to look into it. if it was more than 4,000 square feet it would probably be written up like something it was misrepresented on the plans but it wouldn't be a violation of the building code. we do a lot of -- obviously accurately give us the proper dimensions on plans. they are licensed architects. something like that, we can't look into it. it wouldn't be a problem. i would obviously have to consult with planning.
10:44pm
inside wall to inside walls. you know, the framing. it is obviously maybe some things here that -- because 54 square feet is not much in a space this size but obviously it is critical. we would have no problem looking into that. through a complaint the appellants or from the board's director. more questions. >> thank you. so we can take public comment now. if i can see a show of hands how many people are interested in speaking on this item. >> if i could make a statement. it is a long night. it has already been the long nigh. if that many people speak, it will be very long. we would like to have people indicate where they are for or against this property. this project, pardon me and if you had planned to speak and someone said exactly what you're going to say, please some consideration to us and to the
10:45pm
other people in the room and determine whether or not you really feel it necessary to repeat what somebody else said. how many people are for this? how many people are opposed? obviously a minute, only because i can't give you less. >> again, i'll ask that people who want to speak please line up along the side and up to the side of the podium here and if you would please fill out a speaker card before and after you speak and hand it to us here, it will be very helpful. if we can have the first speaker come on down. >> good evening commissioners in. my name is quentin. i'm a member over the public that called regarding the square footage issue. i find it quite fascinating the version that is now being put forth by planning and d.b.i. i did initially call planning
10:46pm
and i was referred to d.b.i. i then talked to the district inspector who i believe is mr. quinlan here, given such a hoost oil response, who i was told, no -- hostile response, who i was told no, he was not going to participate in my witch-hunt. i went back to planning. the reason why i refused to actually go back to d.b.i. was my concern for d.b.i. to actually do the square footage. it is fascinating to stand in here and hear they will move forward with measuring the square footage and it is a major issue. i've been bringing this up for the last six weeks. i would recommend we can deal with the square fallujah issue by having it measured -- square footage issue by having it measured once and for all. >> next speaker. i ask that the speakers line up closer. >> i'm a resident.
10:47pm
i'm not employed by chase or anybody. i just wanted to speak on behalf of chase and i live in the neighborhood and we only have one bank and it would be nice to have more than one bank in the neighborhood. i would hope maybe it would be a different kind of bank. chase is a bank. we could really use a bank. banks support the local businesses. when banks play employees with payroll and they get a check, the only place that a person can cash a check without having to pay a fee is if they take it from the bank where the check was issued. so if we can have a chase bank that, means the neighborhood businesses can use chase as their bank and they can pay their employees and they can cash the checks without having to pay fees and hopefully they will take some of that money and >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> my name is michael. i'm a business owner and
10:48pm
property owner in the same area. i've noticed the building being empty for about five years now. it is a disgrace. every time someone wans to move in there, something happens to stop them. i don't see the reason why we have stores for rent if we cannot rent them. chase bank, the issue of the a.t.m.. i'm happy it is going to be an indoor thing. it is safer for my wife to go in and swipe the card and gets the money and leave much more than the open place over there. the second part is in terms of banks from the park and market street until gary street, that square has only two banks, b of a. a block away and wels wells fargo. there is no other bank. it is a necessity. and to me, it kind of -- i'm happy a bank wants to invest.
10:49pm
most a.t.m.s are not open -- >> thank you, next speaker, please. >> good evening. i live at -- the section kitty cornered to the chase bank. it is seven blocks away from the proposed bank. i grew up in san francisco. i love this city. i think it is beautiful. it has changed tremendously. i think this law needs to be reviewed if there is something that can be done so that the people can speak and say this is how we feel about how we want to see our neighborhood develop and grow. so it doesn't become a cookie cutter place. i think there is a lot of potential to bring in really cool businesses. they are very different and i don't think chase is one. >> thank you, next speaker, please. >> hello, commissioners. i live about eight blocks from the proposed site here. i'm really not here to speak in
10:50pm
favor of or against chase bank or a bank being here. and about these issues, i don't think flabes always right or the landlord is always right but i am here to speak in favor of public hearing and km use hearing on this matter. san francisco voters and board of supervisors have spoken that for formula retail or chain stores we want public hearings and a conditional use authorization to occur. the fact that the planning department has decided to just sort of ad hoc and arbitrarily carve out banks to me that is not a responsible regulation and i would ask that you use your authority here and not show disaggression to that and actually have a public hearing on the way san francisco voters have requested. if chase is too big to fail, it is too big to be on -- without a conditional use hearing. thank you. >> thank you, next speaker,
10:51pm
please. >> good evening. my name is -- i lived in the neighborhood for seven years. i live about seven blocks from the proposed site. my understanding from the formula retail law is to help small businesses and protect small businesses and in turn protect the character of san francisco and the city i love and why i live here and if you go to new york, which i did on a recent trip and you walk through manhattan there is a chase bank on almost what seems like every other block and this viral nature of spreading this monoculture is directly opposite of what the formula retail law stands for, to my understanding. there is no exception for banks. there is this broad term and to carve out this exception is creating a precedent and possibly a domino effect to turn my neighborhood into a strip mall. if i wanted to live by a strip mall, i would move back to cleveland.
10:52pm
thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> i'm a banker for chase. i work with business owners. >> i'm sorry, if you are an employee of the company, i don't think you should be speaking under public comments. >> all right. >> you can speak turned rebuttal if you choose to. >> thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> good evening. my name is joseph. i am a resident of the neighborhood. i am a chase employee but i am not addressing the board with my time as an employee but as a resident of the neighborhood. like my neighbor said the site has been vacant for the past four or five years. i wait for the 24 bus. seeing a lot of shady activity. i can't remember what the business was that used to be on the corner there, it has been vacant so long. our neighborhood is on an
10:53pm
upswing and no -- opened up restaurant. they did the tree renovation project last year with the city and the neighborhood is on an upswing and it would be nice to have something in this -- the bank would provide employment for 10 people or more and there is a lot of community things that banks give to the community that the media doesn't always highlight. it seems like it has been a lovert negativity. thanks. >> are you trying to influence me in the way i vote? >> are you trying to influence my vote? >> no, sir. >> i'm from new orleans. >> sir, you need to speak into the microphone. >> r if one chase employee rises to speak and is told chase
10:54pm
employees can't speak. i would say whatever the board's ruling is. >> we got to speak. >> if you work for the developer, if you work for chase bank, if you in any way associated with any party to this, it is improper for you to speak. in public comment you may speak during rebuttal if one side decides to budget. >> yes, although as a -- the distinction that -- in this case because as a member of the neighborhood, the individual while he may work at the bank has an independent interest so i apologize to the prior speaker and if he has an independent interest other than representing the bank he would also be entitled to speak. he can come back and state that. >> good evening. my name is chris jones and i'm a 10-year residents of the neighborhood in which the bank would be developed and i'm here
10:55pm
to ask that you would revoke the permit. i think those of us in the neighborhood have all been very happy to watch it undergo a renaissance in last few years and become a more pedestrian friendly small business oriented thorough fair. the destruction of the chase bank would be inappropriate to the context over the neighborhood. there is already putting aside the fact that there are already banks, locations that block, chase bank only five blocks away, we have the added psychological barriers on either side of this particular block by reducing these three store fronts to one monolithic use, you're adding another barrier that is detrimental to the other businesses in the neighborhood. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> hi. my name is alyse and i actually live two doors down. it is actually right above that
10:56pm
24 bus stop that the gentleman was referring to and what i would especially like to address is traffic. obviously they are major arteries in the city and they already pose a major threat to bikers and pedestrians. with the potential added traffic of cars lining up to go into chase, that really poses a threat to people who are traveling by foot. and for my safety and the safety of other people living on -- i don't want to see our street turn into just gas stations and banks and traffic. so thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> good evening. my name is richard k. i'm a resident of the neighborhood for the last 20 years and i'm an advocate of a
10:57pm
conditional use hearing for -- neighbors an opportunity to address some of the complex aspect s of this case that haven't been discussed tonight. the person in front of me talked about traffic. traffic and parking is a concern of mine too. we have a lovert problems with the arco station nearby. no one could have anticipated that issue. it presents a new problem that has not been looked into and i hope you'll give us the opportunity. thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> good evening, commissioners. my name is peter pratt. i reside at 350 broderick street. i'm a former elected planning official in the commonwealth of massachusetts and i would say to
10:58pm
you that my reading of everything in this case is that the planning commission is absolutely correct in its construction. some of us might see it differently about your admirable retail usage code here but it is not the law. chase is needed at that particular location because we have three gas stations. multiple billboards. it is a black hole. we need the pedestrian traffic. we need it as an anchor tenant. thank you. >> next speaker, please? >> hi. my name is mark. i live at 1654 grove street which is a few blocks away from the subject. one block away from the other chase bank authority there that had a 24-hour walk. -- walk-up. a chain hair cut store and i see the name of a chain nail and hair biotechnique type place.
10:59pm
there was a delicious cheese shop. thanks. >> thank you. next speaker, please. don't forget the thuffle shop. i advocate for financial services to be a part of formula retail and for there to be a conditional use hearing. i'm currently a customer of chase over at fulton and mass